Communicated on 29 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 10653/10 Rushaniya HUSEYNOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 February 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Rushaniya Huseynova , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Norway . She is represented before the Court by Mr K. Rognlien , a lawyer practising in Oslo .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

A. Murder of the applicant ’ s husband

The applicant ’ s husband Elmar Huseynov (E.H.) was a well-known independent journalist. At the time of the events he worked as the editor-in-chief of the weekly Monitor magazine which was a strong critic of the Government.

Before the events described below, various civil and criminal proceedings were brought against E.H. for publication of c ritical articles about the President of the Republic, the members of the Government and other State officials. In total, thirty-four proceedings were instituted against him. Moreover, the copies of the magazine were several times confiscated and its publication was prevented by the domestic authorities.

According to the applicant, her husband was regularly threatened because of his critical articles. In particular, in January 2004 a police officer threatened him with death asking to stop writing on the President of the Republic and his family.

At around 9 p.m. on 2 March 2005 when E.H. returned home from work he was shot with seven bullets on the third floor of the building where his flat was located.

E.H. ’ s murder received wide local and inte rnational media coverage and was unanimously condemned by various international NGO s and international organisations , including the Secretary General of the Council of Europe .

In an official statement of 3 March 2005, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan condemned the murder and qualified it as a “big spot” on the country ’ s reputation and a “blow to democratic development of Azerbaijan”.

B . Criminal investigation into the murder of the applicant ’ s husband

On 2 March 2005 criminal proceedings in connection with E.H. ’ s murder were instituted under Articles 120.2.4 (murder) and 228.1 (illegal possession of weapons) of the Criminal Code by the Serious Crime Investigation Department of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office .

On 4 March 2003 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the MIA”) and the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) of the Republic of Azerbaijan issued a joint statement officially informing the public of the institution of criminal proceedings concerning E.H. ’ s murder.

According to the applicant, she was questioned by the investigation on several occasions in connection with her husband ’ s murder. She informed the investigation that prior to the murder she had noticed a man at the entrance of their building carrying himself in a strange manner.

On 6 April 2005 the murder was re-qualified under Articles 277 (act of terror) and 228.1 (illegal possession of weapons) of the Criminal Code and the investigation of the case was removed from the Prosecutor General ’ s Office to the MNS.

In a joint statement of 4 May 2005 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the MIA and the MNS informed the public that a Georgian national, T.X., had been identified as the person involved in E.H. ’ s murder. The statement further noted that T.X. left the country immediately after the murder and an arrest warrant was issued in this respect. The statement also pointed out that the investigation was carried out in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States of America and the Central Security Department of the Republic of Turkey.

On 20 May 2005 the above-mentioned law-enforcement authorities issued a new joint statement. This joint statement officially informed the public of the identification of another perpetrator (T.A.) of E.H. ’ s murder who was a Georgian national. It was further stated that an arrest warrant was issued for T.A. ’ s arrest.

On 31 May 2005 the applicant wrote to the MNS asking for information concerning the progress of the investigation. In particular, she noted that, although she had been recognised as a victim, the investigating authorities had failed to share with her the information concerning the ongoing investigation.

On 2 June and 12 July 2005 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office and the MNS issued joint statements informing the public of the forensic examinations carried out in the United States of America. It was stated that the results of the forensic examinations confirmed that T.X. and T.A. were directly involved in the murder.

On 20 November 2005 the applicant again wrote to the MNS asking for an effective investigation into the murder of her husband. She further asked the investigating authorities to provide her with the information about the progress of the investigation.

According to the applicant, after her husband ’ s murder she was threatened because of her statements that the domestic authorities were involved in the murder. On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant left Azerbaijan for Norway where she was granted asylum.

On 4 July 2008 the applicant ’ s lawyer and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee wrote to the Prosecutor General ’ s Office and the MNS asking for the documents relating to the criminal investigation relating to E.H. ’ s murder.

By a letter of 18 July 2008 the MNS informed the applicant ’ s lawyer that, as he was not a member of the Azerbaijani Bar Association and had failed to submit a power of attorney notarised , he could not obtain a copy of the documents. It was further noted in the letter that under Articles 87 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a victim or her representative may have access to the case file and the relevant documents only following the termination of the preliminary investigation. The applicant ’ s lawyer was also informed that the criminal investigation was still pending.

By a letter of 17 March 2009 the MNS again informed the applicant that her request for access to the case file had been examined. However, in accordance with Articles 87 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a victim or her representative may have access to the case file and the relevant documents only following the termination of the preliminary investigation. It was further specified that the criminal investigation was currently pending and was extended until 2 September 2009. The letter also contained a summary of the investigative steps which had been taken since the institution of criminal proceedings.

According to the applicant, although the investigating authorities stated that the investigation was pending and that the perpetrators of the murder were actively searched, there existed no Interpol warrant against them.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her husband was murdered by State agents and that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the murder of her husband.

The applicant complains that the unlawful killing of her husband constituted a breach of Article 10 of the Convention , as he was targeted on account of his journalistic activities.

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she had no effective remedies in respect of the complaints raised under Articles 2 and 10 of the Convention.

Q UESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant ’ s husband ’ s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, were State agents involved in any way in the murder of the applicant ’ s husband? Was the State under a positive obligation to take appropriate measures to safeguard the applicant ’ s husband ’ s life? Did the applicant ’ s husband inform the police of any real risk to his life? Were the domestic authorities informed of any real risk to the applicant ’ s husband ’ s life before his murder? If so, which measures were taken by the domestic authorities in this respect? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see, among other authorities, Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 298 ‑ 306, ECHR 2011 (extracts), with further references; Menson v. the United Kingdom ( dec. ), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003 ‑ V; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 103, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s husband ’ s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s husband ’ s murder on 2 March 2005 related to his journalistic activity? Did the Government comply with their positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention as defined by the Court (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey , no. 23144/93, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2000 ‑ III, and Dink v. Turkey , nos . 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, §§ 137-139, 14 September 2010)?

3. Did the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of her complaints under Articles 2 and 10, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

4. The Government are requested to provide detailed information concerning any investigative and other steps undertaken by the domestic authorities. They are, in particular, requested to submit copies of all documents, such as forensic reports, legal assistance and extradition requests, procedural decisions, testimony records, photographs, video recordings or any other document relating to the criminal proceedings concerning the murder of the applicant ’ s husband.